USFS news from the Inside

Don Baccus dhogaza at pacifier.com
Tue Aug 3 15:28:03 EST 1999


In article <7o0g0a$h1q$2 at mail.snowcrest.net>,
HULTGREN <arne at snowcrest.net> wrote:

>No, Don. Of course not. What is obvious, but I'll spell it out anyway: why
>did the runs suddenly drop of the brink in the last 5-10 years. It's a
>temporal issue. Pacific coast logging definitely affected salmon
>populations, however the species responded fairly rapidly to changes in land
>management practices (such as outlawing hydraulic mining, and skidding down
>the Class III's). When the runs are steadily being restore through the 40's
>and onward, why should they suddenly become TES? The temporal and spatial
>aspect of forestry are a tiny fraction of what they were in the first half
>of  the century. Fact.

I'm not familiar with California, but your statement's not fact for
the Oregon coast range.

Among other things, the chainsaw and log truck opened up a fair
amount of the range that was either very expensive or for other
reasons impractical to log before the 40s.

And wild coho salmon runs have been steadily declining, with forest
practices being one part of the reason why.  Of course, that steady
decline is mapped on top of the typical cycles of numbers which
correlate to ocean conditions, etc.  That doesn't mean that the
decline's not real, however.

>Now why would you think I "imagine that salmon runs were unaffected" ? I
>hope I don't come off THAT stupid! ;)

Actually, you come off as being that biased... 
-- 

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list